Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ516
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the appellant's learned Counsel as also the learned Counsel who represent respondent-claimant. This is a case in which the bus belonging to the Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. of Tamil Nadu was proceeding along the Lalbagh Fort Road when the respondent is alleged to have tried to cross the road and he got injured. The appellant's learned Counsel has drawn my attention to certain parts of the record in support of his contention that it was relatively a busy area and at a busy part of the day, that the bus had come to a stand-still as certain passengers had to alight and that in these circumstances, the evidence of the driver to the effect that the bus was just moving at a speed of 10 to 15 km. per hour must be accepted. He submits that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the admissions on the part of the respondent-claimant who has admitted that he was pre-occupied with some other thoughts and in other words virtually confessed to the fact that he str...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ1402
M.F. Saldanha, J.1.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this batch of 38 appeals which is directed against a common judgment dated 31.3.1993 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga. It is alleged that on 28.3.1987 an overcrowded bus driven by one Syed Mustafa met with an accident near the Challakere Toll Gate at about 9.15 p.m. The bus toppled on its side and many of the passengers sustained injuries. The police registered an offence and made an inventory of the persons who were injured numbering in all 43 passengers. Subsequently, the cases were placed before the Lok Adalat and since the injured persons were poor villagers, a decision was taken by the insurance company which it stated was on humanitarian grounds, not to contest their claims on merits and to pay reasonable compensation in keeping with the injuries sustained by them. All the 43 persons accepted the compensation and the matter ended there. Approximately fifteen months later, an M.V.C. claim was f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC226(Kar)
ORDER1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacturing of various goods. Some of them are having their industrial units situated within the industrial areas as declared under section 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter in short 'the Industrial Areas Act'). 2. These appellants being aggrieved by the various actions initiated for levy and collection of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter in short 'the Act') filed individual writ petitions before this Court challenging three notifications issued by the State Government purporting to be under section 3 of the Act, providing for rate of tax on the goods brought by them as raw materials in their industrial units for consumption or use therein. These notifications are (a) FD 69 CET 92(I) dated April 30, 1992, (b) FD 69 CET 92(III) dated July 30, 1992 and (c) FD 69 CET 92 dated August 19, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'first', 'second' and 'third' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR27
1. Respondents 1 to 8 filed writ petitions before this Court claiming that they are employed in the Karnataka Electricity Board canteen run by the appellant for the benefit of their employees working in Cauvery Bhavan and other Officers of the Board. It is alleged that the canteen caters to the needs of about 800 employees working in the said premises of the Karnataka Electricity Board; that they are paid very low wages; that they are not paid on par with the other employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board in the matter of emoluments; that the petitions were filed seeking a direction to the respondents to treat respondents 1 to 8 herein as regular employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board, entitled to conditions of service similar to the permanent comparable employees or workmen of the Karnataka Electricity Board; that the canteen is run by Respondent 9 consisting of Officers and Employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board; that the Managing Committee though constituted is run u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3192; 1998(1)KarLJ514
ORDER1. These writ petitions raise a common issue. The petitioners claim that they participated in the Mysore Chalo Movement in 1947. On the basis of the rules framed, they made applications for grant of political pension. As contemplated under the rules, an enquiry was conducted by the authorities. After conducting the enquiry, they were satisfied that the claim is genuine and by order dated 28-9-1983 and other dates, referred to in the respective petitions, pension was granted to the petitioners. They were receiving the pension since then. Thereafter, it is seen that proceedings were initiated by the respondents for cancellation of the political pension on the ground that the grant of pension was incorrect. The typical show-cause notice issued in this behalf reads as follows. (this is similar in all cases):The petitioners seem to have replied to this show-cause notice. After receipt of the reply, the impugned order was passed by the authorities rescinding the political pension grante...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3423
ORDER1. Punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and its correctness or otherwise is the subject-matter of this petition.2. Sri Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that since charges are not admitted by the charge-sheeted Officer, no penalty could have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without holding an enquiry as required under the service code of the bank and the bipartite settlement.3. Sri Ramadas, the learned Counsel for the bank contends that no enquiry need be held if the employee makes an admission of guilt.4. The case revolves round an 'answer' by this Court whether the charge-sheeted Officer can be punished without conducting an enquiry on the ground of 'admission of guilt' before the Disciplinary Authority after the receipt of the charge memo.5. The facts are not in dispute. However for deciding the issue, it is necessary to stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3405; 1998(1)KarLJ480
ORDER1. These batch of civil revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Civil Judges at Chitradurga, Bailahongala, Jamkhandi and Chikodi on various dates allowing the application of the claimants made under Sections 151 and 152, Civil Procedure Code claiming enhanced benefits under the amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act of 1984. Since common questions of law and facts are raised in these revisions, they are consolidated, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In all these cases, lands were acquired by the Government for public purpose viz., in some cases for irrigation projects and in some other cases for other public purpose. The legality of acquisition as such, was not challenged by the land owners. The acquisitions became final when the Land Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation, and possession was taken. Aggrieved by the same, the owners of the lands filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. This is an archak's petition to challenge the order dated 7-12-1992, passed in LEF CR 31/92-93 by the respondent 1-Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, whereunder, the said Divisional Commissioner transferred the subject-lands to the respondent 2-devotees on certain conditions.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt. GeethaMenon appearing along with Smt. Pramila Nesargi, Sri D.L.Suresh appearing for the respondent 2-Chandramouleshwaraswamy Trust and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri S.S. Guttal, appearing for the respondent 1-Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore. I have also perused the records.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while taking me through the facts of the case submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent 2-Divisional Commissioner cannot sustain in law for the simple reason that the same had proceeded on a premise that the claim for grant of occupancy right to the petitioner came to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant86; [1998(79)FLR907]; ILR1998KAR1825; 1998(1)KarLJ79
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for recovery of the money due on promissory note in Original Suit No. 139 of 1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, was dismissed on 19-3-1983. Appeal preferred therefrom in Regular Appeal No. 6 of 1983 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Bangalore met with the same fate on 27-11-1987. Hence the second appeal.2. The suit is based on the promissory note for the value of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which Rs. 11,400/- was claimed to have been paid by the defendant. Decree for the balance was sought for in the suit.3. The defendant contends that he has signed a blank promissory note and given it to one Janardhana Setty. He also confirmed the payment of Rs. 11,400/- to the said Janardhana Setty. According to him Rs. 11,400/- was the amount borrowed by him, and the defendant was expecting the said Janardhana Setty to return the blank promissory note, but that was never to be. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal. The Courts below have com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(59)ECC489; 1998(100)ELT29(Kar); ILR1998KAR1235; 1998(2)KarLJ652
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale and marketing of sprinkler irrigation system including pumps and motors which are used in the agricultural fields for irrigational purposes. It has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 20-01-1997 passed by the respondent-Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal No. E/1031/88-81 Annexure-A under Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act').2. One of the questions arising out of the Tribunal's order is as to whether it was right in holding that pumps on base frames was an identifiable product known as 'trailer' and therefore classifiable under Erstwhile Tariff Item 34 and chapter sub-heading 87.16 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985?3. It has been admitted at the bar by Sri G. Chander Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as also Mr. Ashok Harnahalli, learned Senior...
Tag this Judgment!